A federal judge ruled Monday that Utah must recognize and imbue all same-sex marriages performed in the state with the same rights and privileges afforded to married opposite-sex couples.

Chief among those rights, the judge noted, are the right to property, inheritance, legal protection and "the custody and care of children"  an issue at the center of a state challenge to three state court judges decisions to grant adoptions to married gay couples.

U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball became the first federal judge ever to order a state to acknowledge and honor all gay and lesbian marriages performed after the states ban on same-sex unions was overturned.

Regardless of PC, pro-gay interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s equal protections clause, the states have never amended the Constituiton to expressly protect so-called gay rights. In fact, the Constitution’s silence about both gay “rights” and marriage means that the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay agenda issues, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.

The reason that activist judges are getting away with promoting gay “rights” from the bench is the following imo. Sadly, parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught the Constitution, particularly 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus enumerated rights, non-enumerated rights in the case of gay issues. Neither are children being taught the difference between legislative and judicial powers. So although low-information citizens know that something is wrong when judges decide gay rights cases in favor of the gay agenda, they don’t know enough about the Constitution and basic government powers to argue their convictions.

Where activist federal judges are concerned, citizens need to do the following. Citizens need to work with their federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to promptly, clearly and publicly state specific constitutional clauses to justify their decisions. And if the Constitution is silent about a particular issue, making the issue state power issue, then judges need to indicate that also.

Of course, your honor, we recognize all lawful marriages. Our laws state that marriage is the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. We recognize all of those marriages. As for the fictional unions, well, we have no laws to handle those unions, and they aren't marriages, so ok, thanks for your recommendation. I'm sure you'll get around to writing our legislation for us, but until you do, they hold no significance to us.

23
posted on 05/20/2014 12:17:27 AM PDT
by kingu
(Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)

One of the great misconceptions I deal with as an attorney is the thought you can “will” custody of your children to anyone. The best you can do is nominate someone, which will be given whatever weight a judge decides to accord it when the matter is heard by a court, which it will be.

So no, a will would not provide those rights — for anyone, straight or gay.

“Gay marriage” is an attempted coup d’etat against God, against nature, and against We the People of the United States. I assure you that neither God nor nature will be overthrown. The only question is whether the American people will allow themselves to be overthrown by lawless judges and their supine enablers in the other two branches. The verdict is still out.

What ever happened to checks and balances anyhow?

Frankly, the country can’t be saved until we start to elect folks who understand our form of government to our legislatures and as executives, who will tell the judges to go to hell when they get out of line.

If Obama can ignore laws that he doesn't like, then why can't Americans ignore the rulings of a district judge.

Conservative obey the law, even if they don't agree with it. Liberals ignore laws they don't like. I say it's time to act like Liberals and ignore the laws you don't like. Let them try to enforce them.

37
posted on 05/20/2014 8:44:55 AM PDT
by Cowboy Bob
(They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)

It’s not about ignoring gay marriage, it’s about ignoring rulings from judges that have no legitimate bearing on what is quite obviously a state’s rights issue. The states and counties should tell the judge to enforce his ruling and see how quickly he scurries back into the corner.

Seriously, what is the judge going to do?

39
posted on 05/20/2014 9:25:37 AM PDT
by jurroppi1
(The only thing you "pass to see what's in it" is a stool sample. h/t MrB)

yes, the feds have done such to enforce court orders in cases like Brown V Board I suppose, but when the bulk of the population agrees there is too much federal overreach and they are enforcing an order that doesn’t have the majority populace behind it (yet), I think that would be a pretty bad bone to pick with the states, especially certain ones.

42
posted on 05/20/2014 2:31:37 PM PDT
by jurroppi1
(The only thing you "pass to see what's in it" is a stool sample. h/t MrB)

It has been legally defeated and voted on in many states - there were many real efforts there. Most states that put it to a vote banned accepting homosexual marriage as being on par with traditional opposite sex marriages. The fact that judges make rulings such as this points to the fact that we have a problem with the judiciary. People should be impeaching judges that make such rulings - the fact that they’re not points to a growing problem with the people as well.

43
posted on 05/20/2014 2:35:43 PM PDT
by jurroppi1
(The only thing you "pass to see what's in it" is a stool sample. h/t MrB)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.